icowden
Squire
What a sad angry man you are. Go get some empathy.
Imagine if it were your family trying to escape a war zone.
It's really hard to believe that you are really this xenophobic and lacking in any empathy. No wonder you idolise Trump.
Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Imagine if it were your family trying to escape a war zone.
It's really hard to believe that you are really this xenophobic and lacking in any empathy. No wonder you idolise Trump.
C R
Guru
Don't. Feed It.
briantrumpet
Senior Member
He's just a troll who knows how to press the "say something outrageous" button.
Stevo 666
Well-Known Member
You would expect people fleeing war zones to include a reasonable spread of men and women of various ages, plus children. However based on the pictures we see of the numerous small boats making the crossing, the people in these boats are predominantly younger men. Why do you think that is?
icowden
Squire
I've posted this before.
Let's suppose you are in a war zone. There is you, Mrs Stevo, Bill Stevo aged 12, Fred Stevo aged 19 and Doris Stevo aged 15. You also have Grandpa Stevo now 76 and Grandma Stevo aged 71.
You have enough gold and cash to pay for one member of your family to get to a safe haven after which they can hopefully start to get the rest of your family out via safer routes. They can earn money in the UK which is worth more than your currency which is either worthless due to the war or impossible to get hold of due to the banks being bombed and all.
Who do you send?
You know that Doris and Mrs Stevo stand a very high chance of being raped or trafficked into slavery. You don't send them. You could send yourself. You have skills, you are middle aged and could survive the journey and get a good job. The problem is that if you go, that leaves your wife, children and elderly parents in a war zone. That increases the likelihood of your wife and daughter being raped, your possessions stolen, family killed etc. Too risky.
The person most likely to survive the arduous journey to claim asylum is your oldest male son. He has some English and you know people who have made it to the UK who will help him if he can get there. He doesn't speak German, or French or Italian and you don't know anyone in those countries.
So the UK is the target. You give him the money / gold for the traffickers and pray that you will see him again. He is young, fit and has some basic skills to get a job.
CXRAndy
Guru
After all the the PR, spin, live TV appearanced from Starmer and his double act with Trump heralding this amazing trade deal they've done between UK & US, seems it just hasn't happened (yet?) and we're already back again trying to negotiate exemption from tariffs (those same tariffs Starmer took such pride in announcing zero tariffs on UK steel exports to UK except ...).
Ian
Last week (or maybe week before) Mary Trump was on BBC Newsnight and she was talking about best way to deal with Trump and she said to stand up to him. She was saying how be obsequious, play to his ego, make yourself subservient then you might what you seek short term but he'll be back for more (and she was talking about Starmer's approach)
Ian
icowden
Squire
Unbelievable that a moderate old lefty like Nick Ferrari has turned against Keir Starmer.
Oh hang on...
CXRAndy
Guru
Arguments for sending young Johnny to UK don't hold any water.
You would not leave family behind.
You would at the first opportunity in the first safe country apply for support/asylum/ citizenship so as to get family across ASAP. You know its a war ridden country Johnny is fleeing, imperative get family safe.
Or is it UK is a complete utter soft touch with plenty of benefits soon as you arrive, nice hotel accommodation, clothing, new phone( remember Johnny dropped his in the English Channel) free medical care with instant access to doctors.
Social funding for poor old Johnny, wouldn't want him bored. He may go out and rape some young girl.
But Johnny has to get to UK cos of his rights will be upheld
You would not leave family behind.
You would at the first opportunity in the first safe country apply for support/asylum/ citizenship so as to get family across ASAP. You know its a war ridden country Johnny is fleeing, imperative get family safe.
Or is it UK is a complete utter soft touch with plenty of benefits soon as you arrive, nice hotel accommodation, clothing, new phone( remember Johnny dropped his in the English Channel) free medical care with instant access to doctors.
Social funding for poor old Johnny, wouldn't want him bored. He may go out and rape some young girl.
But Johnny has to get to UK cos of his rights will be upheld
First Aspect
Active Member
The voices in your head loud today?
Johnny is not real. It's just one of your more prejudiced personalities talking to you.
I pretty much said exactly that at the time. Total waste of time and heralding something that hadn't even been written down, far less signed; and even less chance of lasting long term.
icowden
Squire
So you'd watch your elderly relatives die, and your wife and daughter being raped. Assuming of course you had enough money for the whole family of course.
But you don't have the money for that. You need to get the strongest member somewhere they can earn money. Which means going somewhere they speak the language and where they have people who will help them.
It's not nice. It's basic human help. The traffickers told Johnny to drop his phone and papers. They told him it gave him a better chance at asylum. Why? Because there is no legal route for Johnny. If there were, he would still have his phone and papers.
You really are a daffodil sometimes
